





.*<r;^/^«' ' 













Gass t 334 
Book :? S M 



LETTER 



TO THE 



HON. HARRISON GRAY OTIS, 

A MEMBER OF THE SENATE OF M ASSACHUSETTS^ 
ON THE 

PRESENT STATE OF OUR NATIONAL 
AFFAIRS ; 

With Remarks upon Mr. Pickering's 

LETTER 

TO THE GOVERNOR OF THE 
COMMONWEALTH. 

BT JOHN ^QUINCr ADAMS. 






1^. 



4 



NEVVBURYPORT : 

Publillied by W. and J. Oilman, 

Printers and Stationers, 

Middle-Street. 

1808» 



.PSff 



L E T T E 

WASHINGTON, IvlARCH 31, 1808. 

^ ^pEAR SIR, 

^"l I HAVE received from one of mf 

friends in Boflion, a copy of a printed pamphlet, con- 
taining a letter from Mr. Pickering to the Governor of 
the Commonwealth, intended for tommunication to the 
Leglflature of the State, during their Seifion, recently 
concluded. But this object not having been accom- 
plifhed, it appears to have been publiihed by forne friend 
of the writer, whofe inducement is dated, no doubt tru- 
ly, to have been the importance of the matter difculTed 
in it, and the high refpeclability of the author. 

The fubjeds of this letter are tlie Embargo, and the 
diflferences in controverfy between our Country and 
Great-Britain — Subjeils upon which it is my misfor- 
tune, in the difcharge of my duties as a Senator of the 
United States to differ from the opinions of my Col- 
league. The place v/here the quellion upon the firil 
oi them, in common with others of great national con- 
cern, was betvv^een him and me, in our official capaci- 
ties a proper obje<5t of tiifcuffion, was the Senate of the 
Union — There, it v/as difcuffed, and, as far as the con- 
ftitutional authority of that body extended, there it was 
decided — Having obtained alike the concurrence of the 
other branch of the National Legillature, and the ap- 
probation of the Prefident, it became the Law of the 
Land, and as fuch I have confidercd it entitled to tiie 
refpedt and obedience of every virtuous citizen. 

From thefe decifions, however, the letter in queftion 
is to be confidered in the nature of an appeal ; in the 
iirft inftance, to our common conftituents, the Legifla- 
ture of the State — and in the fecond, by the publication, 
to the people. To both thefe tribunals I Ihall always 
hpld myle]f accountable for every acl of my public life. 



Yet, were my own political charadler alone implicated 
in the courfe which has in this inftance been piirfued, I 
fhould have forborne all notice of the proceeding, and 
have left my condu(5t in this, as in other cafes, to the 
Ciandour and difcretion of my Country. 

But to this fpecies of appeal, thus conduced, there 
are fome objefbions on Conftitutional grounds, which 1 
deem it my duty to mention for the confi deration of the 
public. On a (latement of circumftances attending a 
very important a<5l of national legiflation, a ftatement 
which the writer undoubtedly believed to be true, but 
which comes only from one fide of the queftion, and 
which, I expert to prove in the moft efTential points er- 
roneous, the writer with the moft animated tone of en- 
ergy calls for the interposkion of the commercial States, 
and afferts that " nothing but their fenfe, clearly and 
emphatically exprelTed, will fave them from ruin." 
This folemn and alarming invocation is addreffed to the 
Legiflature of Maflachufetts, at fo late a period of their 
Seffion, that had it been received by them, they muft 
have been compelled either to adt upon the views of 
this reprefentation, without hearing the counter ftate- 
ment of the other fide, or feemingly to difregard the 
preffing interefts of their conftituents, by neglevfting an 
admonition of the moft ferious complexion. Confider- 
ing the application as a precedent, its tendency is dan- 
gerous to the public. For on the fir ft fuppofition, that 
the Legillature had been precipitated to aift on the fpur 
of fuch an inftigation, they muft have acted on imper- 
ieift information, and under an excitement, not remark- 
ably adapted to the compofure of fate deliberation. On 
the fecond they Avould have been expofed to unjuft im- 
puiHtions, which at the eve of an eledion might have 
t'jjerated in the moft inequitable manner upon the char- 
aa^rs of individual members. 

The interpofition of one or more State Legiflatures, 
to controul the exercile of the powers vefted by the 
general Conftitution of the Congrefs of the United 
iStutes, is at leaft of queftionable policy. The views of 



a State Legiflature are naturally and properly limited 
in a confiderable degree to the particular interefts of the 
State. The very object and formation of the National 
deliberative affemblies was for thecompromife and con- 
ciliation of the interefts of all — of the whole nation. If 
the ajipeal from the regular, legitimate meafures of the 
body where the whole nation is reprefentedj. be proper 
to one State Legiflature, it muft be fo to another. If 
the commercial States are called' to irteivofe on one 
hand, will not the agricultural States be with equal 
propriety fummoned to interpofe on the other ? If the 
Eaft is Simulated againft the Weft, and tiie Northcun 
and Southern Sedions are urged into coll; Ccn with ^cxih 
other, by appeals from the adls of Congrefs to the re*- 
ipective States — in what are these appeals io end ? 

It is undoubtedly the right, and may often become 
the duty of a State Legiflatuie, to addrefs that of thft 
Kation, with the expreftlon of its wiihcs, in regard to 
interefts peculiarly concerning the State itfelf. Nor 
ihall I queftion the right of every meniber of the great 
federative compact to declare its own fenfe of m.eafure-4^ 
interefting to the nation at large. But whenever t!.^ 
cafe occurs that this iewk Ihould be " cltarly and em- 
phatically'* exprefted, it ought furely to be predicated 
upon a full and impartial confideratlon oi llie whole 
fubjecl — not under the ftimulus of a one-fid d rcprefen- 
tation — far lefs upon the impulfe of conjectures anc* 
Ijfiifpicions. It is not through the medium of perfonal 
^nlibility, nor of party bias, nor of profeftional occu- 
pation, nor of geographical pofition, that the ti'hole truth 
can be difcerned, of queftions involving the rights and 
interefts of this extenfive Union. When their difcuffion 
is urged upon a State Legiflature, the hrft call upon its 
meml3ers fliould be to caft all their feelings and inter, 
efts as the Citizens of a Angle State into the common 
Stock of the National concern. 

Should the occurrence upon which an appeal is made 
from tlie Councils of the Nation, to thofe of a Angle 
State be one, upon which the reprefentaticn of the State 



had been divided, and the member who fomid himfelf 
in the minority, felt impelled by a fenfe of duty to in- 
voke the Interpofitlon of his Conilituents, it would feem 
that in juftice to them, and in candour to his colleague, 
fome notice of fuch intentions fhould be given to him, 
that he too might be prepared to exhibit his v'mivs <5f 
the fubjed upon which the difference of opinion had 
taken place ; or, at leaft, that the refort fliould be had, 
at fuch a period of time as would leave it within the 
reach of poffibillty for his reprefentations to be received 
by their common Conftituents, before they would be 
compelled to decide on the merits of the cafe. 

The fairnefs and propriety of this courfe of proceed- 
ing muft be fo obvious, that it is difficult to conceive of 
the propriety of any other. Yet it prefents another in- 
convenience which mud neceffarily refult from this 
pradlice of appellate legiflation — When one of the Sen- 
ators from a State proclaims to his conftituents tliat a 
particular iiieafure, or fyftem of meafdres which has re- 
ceived the vote and fupport of his colleague, are perni- 
cious and deftrudive to thofe intciefts which both are 
bound by the moft; facred ties, with zeal and fidelity to 
promote, the denunciation of the meafurcs amounts to 
little lefs than a denunciation of the man. The advo- 
cate of a policy thus reprobated muft feel himfelf fum- 
moned by every motive of felf-defence to vindicate his 
condu(5]: : and if his general fenfe of his official duties 
would bind him to the induftrious devotion of his wholej 
time to the public bufniefs of the feffion, the Lours ' 
which he might be forced to employ for his own juftifi- 
cation, would of courfe be deduc1:ed from the difcharge 
of his more regular and appropriate funclions. Should 
thefe occafions frequently recur, they could not fail to 
interfere with the due performance of the public bufi- 
nefs. Nor can I forbear to remark the tendency of fuch 
antagonizing appeals to diftraifl: theCouncils of the State 
in Its own Legiilature, to deftroy its influence, and ex- 
pofe it to derifion. In the prefence of its fifter States, 
and to produce between the colleagues themfclves mu- 



ttia! afperities and rancours, until the great concerns of 
the nation woiild degenerate into the puny controver- 
fies of perfonal altercation. 

It is therefore with extreme relu<51:ance that I enter 
upon this difcuffion. In developing my own views and 
the principles which have governed my conduct in re- 
lation to our foreign affairs, and particularly to the 
Embargo, fome very material differences in point of 
fad as well as of opinion, will be found between my 
flatements, and thole of the letter, which alone can a- 
pologize for this. They will not, I truft, be deemed 
in any degree difrefpe(5lful to the writer. Far more 
pleafmg would it have been to me, could that honeft 
and anxious purfuit of the pohcy bell calculated to pro- 
mote the honour and welfare of our Country, whicli, I 
truft, is felt with equal ardour by us both, have refulted 
in the fame opinions, and have given them the vigour of 
united exertion. There is a candour and liberality of 
condud and of fentiment due from affociates in th» 
fime public charge, towards each other, neceffary to 
their individual reputation, their common influence, and 
their public ufefulnefs. In our republican Government, 
where the power of the nation confifts alone in the fym- 
pathies of opinion, this reciprocal deference, this open 
hearted imputation of honefl intentions, is the only ad^ 
amant at once attractive and impenetrable, that can bear, 
unlhattered, all the thunder of foreign hoftihty. Ever 
fuice I have had the honour of a feat in the- National 
Councils, I have extended it to every department of the 
Government. However differing in my conclufions, 
upon queftions of the higheft moment, from any other 
man, of whatever party, I have never, upon fufpicion, 
imputed his conduct to corruption. It this confidence 
argues ignorance of pubHc men and public affairs, to 
tliat ignorance I mufl; plead guilty. I knew, indeed, 
enough of human nature tobeienfible thatvigilant obfer- 
vation is at all times, & that fufpicion may occafionally 
become necelfary, upon the condu^ft of men in povvTr. 
But I knoY/ as well that confidence is the only cement 
of an elective government — ^Eledion is the very tell cf 



tonfidence — and its periodical return is the conftitutlon- 
al check upon its abufe ; of which the eledlors muft of 
courfe be fole judges. For the exercife of power, where 
man is free, confidence is indifpenfable — and when it 
once totally fails — when the men to whom the people 
have committed the application of their force, for their 
benefit, are to be prefumed the vilefi of mankind, the 
very foundation of the focial compact mufl be dilfolved. 
Towards the Gentleman whofe official ftation refults 
from the confidence of the fameLegillature,by whofe ap- 
pointment I have the honour of holding a fimilar truft, 
I have thought this confidence peculiarly due from me, 
nor Ihould I now notice his letter, notwithftanding the 
difapprobation it fo obvicufly implies at the courfe 
which I have purfued in relation to the fubj efts of which 
it treats, did it not appear to me calculated to produce 
upon the public mind, irripreflions unfavourable to the 
rights aiid interefts of the nation. 

Having underftood that a motion in the Senate of 
Maifachufetts was made by you, requeuing the Gover- 
nor to tranfmit Mr. Pifckering's letter to the Legilla- 
ture, together with fuch communications, relating to 
public affairs, as he might have received from me, I 
iivail myfelf of that circumftance, and of the friendfhip 
which has fo long fubfilled between us, to take the lib- 
erty of addrefling this letter, intended for publication, 
to you. Very few of the fadls which I Ihall ftate will 
reft upon information peculiar to myfelf — Moft of them 
will Hand upon the bafis of official documents, or of 
public and undifputed notoriety. For my opinions, 
though fully perfuaded, that even where differing from 
your own, they will meet with a fair and liberal judge 
in you, yet of the public I afk neither favour nor in- 
dulgence. Pretending to no extraordinary credit from 
the authority of the writer, I am fenfible they muft fall 
by their own weaknefs, or ftand by their own ftrength. 

The firft remark which obtrudes itfelf upon the mind, 
on the perufal of Mr. Pickering's letter is, that in enu- 
merating all the freknces (for he thinks there are no 



caufes) for the Embargo, and for a War with Great- 
Britain, he has totally omitted the Britilh orders of 
Council of November 11, 1807, thofe orders, under 
which millions of the property of our fellow citizens, 
are now detained in Britifh hands, or confifcated to 
Britilh captors, thofe orders, under which tenfold as 
many millions of the fame property would have been 
at this moment in the fame predicament, had they not 
been faved from expofure to it by the Embargo, 
thofe orders, which if once fubmitted to and carried to 
the extent of their principles, would not have left an 
inch of American Canvafs upon the ocean, but under 
Britilh licence and Biitilh taxation. An attentive read- 
er of the letter, without other information, would not 
even fufpecl their exiftence. They are indeed in one or 
two palTages, faintly, and darkly alluded to, under the 
juftifying defcription of "the orders of the Britilh Gov- 
ernment, retaliathig the French imperial decree :" but 
as caufes for the Embargo, or as poffible caufes or even 
pretences of War with Great-Britain, they are not only 
unnoticed, but their very exiiience is by diredl implica* 
tion denied. 

• It is indeed true, that thefe oiders were not officially 
communicated with the Prefident's Melfage recom.mend- 
ing the Em.bargo. They had not been officially receiv- 
ed — But they were announced in feveral paragraphs 
from the London and Liverpool Newfpapers of the 
10th, 11th and iSth of November, which appeared in 
the National Intelligencer of 18th Decem.ber, the day 
upon which the Embargo Ivleilage v.-as fent to Congrefs. 
The Britilh Government had taken care that they 
fhould not be authentically known before their time — . 
for the very lame Newfpapers which gave this inofficial 
notice of tliefe orders, announced alio the departure of 
Mr. Rofe, upon a fpecial million to the United States. 
And v.'e now know that of thefe all-devouring inftru- 
ments of rapine, Mr. Rofe was not even informed. — . 
His miffion was profelTedly a miffion of conciliation 
and reparation for a flagrant — -enormous — acknowledg* 



19 

cd outrage. — But he was not fent with tliefe orders of 
Council in his hands, — His text, was the difavowal of 
Admiral Berkley's condud — The Commentary was to 
be difcovered on another page of the Biitifh minifterial 

policy On the face of Mr. Rofe's inftru<flions, thefe 

orders of Council were as invifible, as they are on that 
of Mr. Pickering's letter. 

They were not merely without official authenticity. 
Rumours had for feveral weeks been in circulation, 
derived from Englifh prints, and from private corref- 
pondences, that fuch orders were to iffue ; and no in- 
confiderable pains were taken here to difcredit the fad:. 
AfTurances were given that there was reafon to believe 
no fach orders to be contemplated. Sufpicion was lul- 
led by declarations equivalent nearly to a pofitive de- 
nial : and thefe opiates were continued for weeks after 
the Embargo was laid, until Mr. Erfkine received in- 
ftrudions to make the official communication of the or- 
ders themfelves, in their proper fhape, to our Govern- 
ment. 

Yet, altho' thus unauthenticated, and even although 
thus in fome fort denied, the probability of the circum- 
ftances under which they were announced, and the 
fweeping tendency of their effecTts, formed to my under- 
ftanding a powerful motive, and together with the pa- 
pers fent by the Prefident, and his exprefs recommend- 
ation, a decifive one, for afTenting to the Embargo. 
As a precautionary meafure, I believed it would refciie 
an imraenfe property from depredation, if the orders 
iiiould prove authentic. If the alarm was groundlef-:, 
it muil very foon be difproved, and the Embargo might 
be removed with the danger. 

The omiffion of all notice of thefe fads in the pref- 
fmg enquiries " why the Embargo was laid ?" is the 
more fuprifmg, becaufe they are of all the fads, tha 
mod material, upon a fair and impartial examination 
of the expediency of that Ad, when it paiTed — ^And 
becaufe thefe orders, together with the fubfequent 
" retaliating decrees of France and Spain, have furnilli- 



11 

ed the only reafons upon which I haVe acqulefced in its 
continuance to this day. If duly weighed, they will fave 
us the trouble of reforting to jealoufies of fecret corrup- 
tion, and the imaginary terrors of Napolean for the real 
caviie of the Embargo. Thefe are fidions of foreign 
invention — ^The French Emperor had not declared that 
he would have no neutrals — Ke had not required that 
our ports fhould be fliut againft Britifh Commerce- 
but die orders of Council, if fubmitted to, would have 
degraded us to the condition of Colonies. If refilled 
would have fattened the wolves of plunder with our 
fpoils. The Embargo was tlie only fiielter from the 
Temped — The laft refuge of our violated Peace. 

I have indeed been myfelf of opinion that the Em- 
bargo, muft in its nature be a temporary expedient, 
and that preparations manifefting a determination of 
refiftance againfl thefe outrageous violations of our 
neutral rights ought at leaft to have been made a fub- 
jed of ferious deliberation in Congrefs. I have believ- 
ed and do ftill believe that our internal refources are 
competent to the eftablifhment and maintainance of a 
naval force public and private, if not fully adequate to 
the prote(5lion and defence of our Commerce, at leaft 
fufficient to induce a retreat from thefe hoftilities and 
to deter from a renewal of them, by either of the war- 
ring parties ; and that a fyflem to that efFecl might be 
formed, ultimately far more economical, and certainly 
more energetic than a three years Embargo. Very 
foon after the clofure of our Ports, I did fubmit to the 
confideration of the Senate, a pijopofition for the ap- 
pointment of a committee to inftitute an enquiry to 
this end. But my refolution m^t no encouaragement. 
Attempts of a fimilar nature have been made in the 
Houfe of Reprefentatives, but have been equally dif- 
countenanced, and from thefe determinations by decid- 
ed majorities of both houfes, I am. not fufficiently con- 
fident in the fuperiority of my own Wifdom to appeal, 
.by a topical application to the congenial feelings of any 
one — ^not even my own native Sedion of the Union. 



12 

The Embaigo, howerer, is a reftn<aion always under 
our own controul. It was a meafure altogether of de* 
fence, and of experiment — If it was injadicioiifly or 
over-haftily laid, it has been every day fmce its adop- 
tion open to a repeal : if it fliould prove ineifeclual for 
the purpofes which it was meant to fecure, a fmgle day 
tvill fuffice to unbar the doors. Still believing it a 
meafure juftified by the circumftances of the time, I 
am ready to admit that thofe who thought otherwife 
may have had a wifer forefight of events, and a found* 
er judgment of the then exifting ftate of things than the 
majority of the National Legiflature, and the Prefident. 
It has been approved by feveral of the State Legifla- 
tures, and among the reft by our own. Yet of all its 
efFedls We are ftill unable to judge with certainty. It 
muft flill abide the teft of futurity. I ihall add that 
there were other motives which had their operation in 
contributing to the paffage of the acl, unnoticed by Mr. 
^Pickering, and which having now ceafed will alfo be 
left unnoticed by me. The orders of Council of Ilth 
Nov. ftiil fabfift in all their force ; and are now confirm* 
cd, with the addition o£ taxation, by adt of Parliament. 

As they ft and in front of the real caufes for the Em- 
bargo, fo they are entitled to the fame pre^-eminence in 
enumerating the caufes of hoftiiity, which the Britifh 
Minifters are accumulatingupon our forbearance. They 
ftrikeat the root of our independence. They aflume the 
principle that we fliall have no commerce in time of 
%var, but with her dominions, and as tributaries to her. 
IVhe exclufive confinement of commerce to the mother 
country, is the great principle of the modern colonial 
fyftem ; and lliould \ve by a derelidlion of our rights at 
this momentous ftride of encroachment fun-ender our 
commercial freedom without a ftruggle, Britain lias 
but a fmgle ftep moie to take, and Ihe brings us back 
to the ftamp a^Sl and the tea tax. 

Yet thefe orders — thus fatal to the liberties for which 
the fages and heroes of our revolution toiled and bled— 
tluis ftudioufly concealed until the moment when thej 



13 

burfl; upon our heads — thus iilued at the very inilant 
when a miffion of atonement was profefledly fent — in 
thefe orders we are to fee nothing but a " retahating or- 
der upon France" — in thefe orders we muft not find fo 
inuch as a caufe — nay, not fo much as a pretence, for 
complaint againft Britain. 

To my mind. Sir, in comparifon with thofe orders, 
the three caufes to which Mr. Pickering explicitly lim- 
its our grounds for a rupture with England, might in- 
deed be juftly denominated pretences — in comparifon 
with them, former aggreffions fmk into infigniiicance. 
To argue upon the fubje<5l of our difputes with Britain, 
or upon the motives for the Embargo, and keep tliem 
out of fight, is like laying your finger over the viiit be- 
fore a feries of noughts, and then aiithmetically prov. 
ing that they all amount to nothing. 

It is not however in a miere omlflion, nor yet in th« 
hiftory of the Embargo, that the inaccuracies of the 
flatement I am examiining have given me the moil fe- 
rious concern — it is in the view taken of the queftions 
in controverfy between us and Britain. The wifdom of 
the Embargo is a queftion of great, but tranfient mag- 
nitude, and omiffion facrinces no national right. Mr. 
Pickering's obje6l was to diffuade the nation from a 
war with England, into which he fufpeded the admin- 
iilration was plunging us, under French compulfion. 
But the tendency of his pamphlet is to reconcile the 
nation, or at leaft the commercial States, to the fervitude 
of Britilli protection, and war with all the reft of Eu- 
rope. Hence England is reprefented as contending for 
the common liberties of mankind, and our only fafe- 
guai-d againft the am-bltion and injuftice of France. 
Hence all our fenfibilities are invoked in her favor, and 
all our antipathies againft her antagonift. Hence too 
all the fubjedls of diiferences between us and Britain are 
alledged to be on our part xn^re pretences, of which the 
right is unequivocally pronounced to be on her side. 
Proceeding from a Senator cf tlie United States, fpe- 
cially charged as a member of the executive with the 

B 



14. 

maintenance of the nation's rights, againfl foreign pow- 
ers, and at a moment extremely critical of pending ne- 
gotiation upon all the points thus delineated, this for- 
mal abandonment of the American caufe, this fummons 
of unconditional furrender to the pretenfions of our an- 
tagonift^ is in my mind highly alarming. It becomeisr 
therefore a duty to which every other confideration 
mud yield to point out the errors of this reprefentation. 
Before we ftrike the flandaid of the nation, let us at 
leaft examine the purport of the fummons. 

And firft, w4th refpedl to die impreflment of our fea- 
men. We are told that " the taking of Britilh feamen 
found on board our merchant veffels, by Britilh fhips of 
war, is agreeable to a right, claimed and exercifed for 
ages." It is obvious that this claim and exercife of 
ages, could not apply to us, as an independent people. 
If the right was claimed and exercifed while our yef- 
fels w^ere navigating under the Britilh flag, it could 
not authorize the fame claim when their owners 
had become the citizens of a fovereign ftate. As a re- 
lict of colonial fervitude, whatever m.ay be the claim of 
Great-Britain, it furely can be no ground for contend- 
ing that it is entitled to our fubmiflion. 

If it be meant that the right has been claimed and 
exercifed for ages over the merchant veiTels of other 
nations, I apprehend it is a miftake. The cafe never 
occur led with fullicient frequency to conftitute even a 
practice, much lefs a right. If it had been either, it 
would have been noticed by fome of the WTitcrs on the 
laws of nations. The truth is, the queftion arofe out of 
American independence — from the fe^'^erance of one na- 
tion into two. It was never made a queftion between 
any other nations. There is therefore no right of 
prefcription. 

But, it feems, it hs-s alfo been claimed arid exerctsedy 
during the w^hole of the tln^ee Adminiftrations of out 
national Government. And is it meant to be averted 
that this claim and exercife conftitute a right f* If it is^ 
I appeal to the uniform, unceafmg and urgent remon- 



ftrances of the three admmiftrations — I appeal not ovilj 
to the warm feelings, but cool jufllce of the Ame- 
rican People — nay, I appeal to the found fenfe and hon- 
ourable fentiment of the Britifli nation itfeif, which, 
however, it may have fubmitted at home to this prac- 
tice, never would tolerate its fanaion by Luv, againfl 
the afTertion. If it is not, how can it be affirmed that 
it is on our part a mere pretence ? 

But the firil: merchant of the United States, in anfwer 
to Mr. Pickefing^s late enquiries has informed him that 
fnice the attair of the Chefapeake there has been no 
caufe of complaint — that he could not find a fmgle in- 
fiance wheie they had taken, one man out of a mer- 
chant vefiel. Who it is, that enjoys the dignity of hrfl 
merchant of the United States v/e are nor informed. 
But if he had applied to many merchants in Boilon, as 
refpedable as any in the United States, they cculd 
have told him of a valuable vefTel and cargo, totally 
loft upon the coaft of England, late in Auguft laft, and 
folely in confequence of having had tvv^o of her m.en, 
native Americans taken from her by impreffment, tv\-o 
months after the affair of the Chefapeake. 

On the 15th of 0»51ober, the king of England ifTued 
his proclamation, commanding his naval officers, to im- 
prefs his fubjecls from neutral veiTels. This proclama- 
tion is reprefented as merely " requiring the return of 
his fubjeds, the feamen efpecially, from foreign coun- 
tries,'' and then " it is an acknowledged principle that 
every nation has a ri^ht to the fervice of its fubjetfis in 
time of war." Is this. Sir, a corrcd l-.atemient either cf 
the Prcclama!:ion,or of thequcRionit involves in whicli 
our right is concerned ? The king of England's riglit 
to the fervice of his fubje(5ls in time of war is nothing to 
us. The queftion is, whether he has a right to leize 
them forcibly on board of our veffels while under con- 
tra(5l of fervice to our citizens, within our jurifdidion 
upon the high feas ? And whether he has a right ex- 
prefsly to command his naval officers fo to feize them 
-—Is this a?> acknowledged piinciple ? certainly not. — 



16 

Whj then is this Proclamation defcribed as founded 
upon uncontefted prhiciple ? and why is the command, 
ib juftly ofFenfive to us, and fo mifchievous as it might 
then have been made in execution, altogether omitted ? 
But it is not the taking of Britifh fubjecfls from our 
vefTels, it is the taking, under colour of that pretence, 
our own, native American citizens, which conflitutesthe 
mod galling aggravation of this mercilefs pradice. Yet 
even this, we are told is but a pretcnce-for three reafons. 

1. Becaufe the number of citizens thus taken, is smalL 

2. Becaufe it arifes only from the impoflibility of dif- 
tinguifhing Engliflimen from An~eilcans. 

3. Becaufe, fuch impreifed American citizens are de- 
livered up, on duly authenticated proof. 

1. Small and great, in point of numbers, are relative 
terms. To fuppofe that the native Americans form a 
fmall proportion of the whole number impreffed is a mif. 
take — The reverfe is the fad. Examine the ofEcial re- 
turns from the Department of State. They give the 
names of between four and five thoufand men imprefled 
^nce the commencement of the prefent War. Of which 
liumber, not one fifth part were Britifh fubjefls — The 
number of naturalized Americans could not amount to 
one tenth, — I hazard little in faying that more than three 
fourths were native Americans. If it be faidthatfome 
of thefe men, though appearing on the face of the returns 
American Citizens, were really British fubjecls, and had 
fraudulently procured their prote(5lions ; I reply that this 
number muft be far exceeded by the cafes cf Citizens 
impreifed, which never reach the Department of State., 
The American Conful in London eftimates the number 
< f impreinTicnts during the War at nearly three times 
the amount of the names returned. If the nature of the 
offence be confidered in its true colours, to a people hav- 
ing a juft: fcnfe of perfonal liberty and fecurity, it is in ev- 
ery Angle inftance, of a mahgnitynot inferior to that of 
murder. The v ery fame adl:,, when com.mitted by the 
recruiting officer of one nation within the territories of 
another, is by the univeriiil law and ufage of nations pun- 



.17 

ilhed with death. Suppofe the crime had in every iu- 
ftance, as by its confequences it has been in many, de- 
liberate murder. Would it anAver or filence the voice 
of our complaints to be told that the number was fmall? 

2- The impoffibility of diftinguiihing Englilli from 
American feamen is not the only, nor even the moil 
frequent occafion of impreifment. Look again into the 
returns from the Department of State — you will fee 
that the ofEcers take our men wiih.out pretending to 
enquire where they were born ; fometimes nierely t0 
lliew their animofity, or their contempt for our country; 
fometimes from the wantonnefs of power. When they 
manifeft the mod tender regard tor the neutral rights 
of America, they lament that they ^zL-ard the men. They 
regret tlie neceffity, but they musi have their comple* 
ment. Wlien we complain of thete enormities, we are 
anfwered that the ads of fuch officers were unautlioriz- 
ed ; that the commanders of Men of War, are an un- 
ruly fet of men, for whofe violence their own govern- 
ments cannot always be anfwerable, that enquiry Ihall 
be made — A Court Martial is fometimes mentioned — 
And the iilue of Whitby's Court Martial has taught us 
what relief is to be expeded fiom tha.t. There are evea 
e:\amples I am told, when fuch officers have been put 
upon the yellow lift.. But this is a rare exception — 
The ordinary ilTue when the 2.S. is disavowed, is the. 
promotion of the a^flor.. 

S. The impreffed native American Citizens, however,, 
upon .'^uly autherd'icaicd proof Tixe delivered up. Indeed I 
how unrepcfonable then were complaint ! hovv- eifedlual 
a remedy for the wrong ! an Am.erinan veifel, bound 
to a European port, has two, three or four native Am- 
cricans, impreifed by a Britifli Mail of Wpj-, bound to 
the Eafl.or Weft Indies. When the American captain 
arrives at his port of deftination he makes his proteft, 
and fends it to the neare ft American Minifter or Confti]. 
When he returns home, he tranfmits the duplicate cF 
his proteft to the Secretary of State. In procefs of 
lime, the names of the imprelTed men, and of the Slni? 



18 

into which they have been imprefTed, are received by 
the Agent in London. He makes his demand that the 
men may be delivered up — The Lords of the Admiral- 
ty, after a reafonable time for enquiry and advilement, 
return for anfv^-er, that the Ship is on a foreign ftation, ' 
and their Lordfhips can therefore take no further fteps 
in the matter — Or, that the Ihip has been taken, and 
that the men have been received in exchange for French 
prifoners — Or, that the men had no protedions (the 
impreffing officers often having taken them from the 
men) — Or, that the men wqiq probably Britifh fubjeds 
— Or, that they have entered, and taken the Bounty ; 
(to which the officers know how to reduce them) — Or, 
that they have been married, or fettled in England. In 
all thefe cafes,without further ceremony, their difcharge 
is refufed. Sometimes, their Lordihips, in a vein of 
humour, inform the agent that the man has been dif- 
charged as unserviceable. Sometimes, in a fterner tone, 
they fay he was an impostor. Or perhaps by way of 
confolation to his relatives and friends, they report that 
he has fallen in Battle, againft nations in Amity with 
his Country. Sometimes they cooly return that there 
is no fuch man on board the Jliip ; and what has becom^e 
of him, the agonies of a wife and children in his native 
land, may be left to conjedure. When all thefe and 
many other fuch apologies for refufal fail, the native 
American citizen is difcharged — and v^rhen by the 
charitable aid of his government he has found his way 
home, he comes to be informed, that all is as it fliould 
lie — that the number of his fellow fufferers is fmall — 
that it was impoifible to dilHnguiih him from an Eng- 
lifhman — and that h(i v/as delivered up, on duly authcn' 
tic ated proof. 

Enough, of this difgufting fubje<5l — I cannot flop to 
calculate how many of tliefe wretched vi<5lims are na- 
tives of MafTachafetts, and how many natives of Vir- 
ginia — I cannot flop to folve that knotty queftion of 
national jurifpradence, v.'hether fbme of them might 
not poffibly be flaves, and therefore not Citizens of the 



19 

United States — I cannot (lay to account for the won- 
der, why, poor, and ignorant and friendlefs as moft of 
them are, the voice of their complaints is fo feldom 
heard in the great navigating dates. I admit that we 
have endured this cruel indignity, through all the ad- 
miniftrations of the General Government. I acknowl- 
edge that Britain claims the right of feizing her fub- 
je^s in our merchant veflels, and that even if we could 
acknowledge it, the line of difcriminaticn would be dif- 
ficult to draw. We are not in a condition to maintain 
this right by War, and as the Britilli Governm.ent have 
been more than once on the point of giving it vip of 
their own accord, I would flill hope for tlie day when 
returning juftice Ihall induce them, to abandon it, with- 
out compulfion. Her fubjecls we do not want. The 
degree of protection which we are bound to extend to 
them, cannot equal the claim of our own citizens. I 
would fubfcribe to any compromife of this conteft, con- 
fident with the rights of fovereignty, the duties of hu- 
manity, and the principles of reciprocity ; but to the 
right of forcing even her own fubje<5ls out of our mer- 
chant vefTels on the high feas, I never can aiTent. 

The fecond point upon which Mr. Pickering defends 
the pretenfions of Great-Britain, is her denial to neu- 
tral nations ot the right of profecuting with her ene- 
mies and their colonies, any commerce from wliicli they 
are excluded in time of peace. Kis ftatement of this 
cafe adopts the Britifh dodrine, as found. The right, 
as on the queftion of impreffment, fo on this, it iui ren- 
ders at difcretion — and it is equally defedive in point 
of faft. 

In the firft place, the claim of Great-Britain is not 
to " a right of impofnig on this neutral commerceyoTr/i? 
limits and rejlraints'^ — but of interdiding it altogether, 

!at her pleafuie, of interdicting it without a moment's 
notice to neutrals, after folemn decifions of her courts 
of admiralty, and formal acknowledgm.ents of her min- 
iiters, that it is a lawful trade — And on fuch a fudden, 
^mnotified interdidion, of pouncipg upon all neutral 



«9 

commerce lla^^gatlng upon the faith of her decifions 
and acknowledgments, and of gorgmg with confifca- 
tlon the greedinefs of her cruizcrs — This is the right 
claimed by Britain — This is the power fhe has excrciied 
— ^What Mr. Pickering calls '* limits and refrraints," 
Ihe calls relaxations of her right. 

It is but little more than two years, fmce this qucf- 
tion was agitated both in England and America, with 
as much zeal, energy and ability, as was ever difplayed 
upon any queftion of national law. The Britifh fide 
was fupported by Sir William Scott, Mr. Ward, and the 
author of War in Difguife. But even in Britain their 
do(5trine was refuted to demonftration by the Edinburg 
reviewers. In America, the rights of our country were 
maintained by numerous writers, profoundly fkilled 
in the fcience of national and maritime Law. The j4n- 
f'Lver to War in Difguife was afcribed to a gentleman 
whofe talents are univerfally acknowledgcd,and wlio by 
his official fituations h^d been required thoroughly to 
inveftigate every queliion of conflid: between nej.itral 
and belligerent rights which has occurred in the hiftory 
of modern War. Mr. Gore and Mr. Pinckney, our two 
commiilioners at London, under Mr. Jay's treaty, the 
former, in a train of cool and conclufive aigument, ad- 
die/Ted to Mr. Madifon — the latter in a memorial of 
fplendid eloquence from the Merchants of Baltimore^ 
fupported the fame caufe ; memorials,drawn by lawyers 
of diftingulfned eminence, by Merchants of the highetl 
charader, and by ftatefmeli of long experience in our 
national councils, came from Salem, from Bofton, from 
New-Haven, from New- York, and from Philadelphia, 
together with lemonftrances to the fame eifed frona 
Newbury port, Newport, Norfolk and Charlcfton. This 
accumulated mafs of legal learning, cf ccmmercial in- 
formation, and of national fentiment, from almoil eve- 
ry inhabited fpot upon our fhores, and from one ex- 
tremity of the union to tl:e other, confirmed by the 
unanfwered and unanfv/erable niernoriul of Mr.Munroe 
to the Britifh Minifter, and by the elaborate refciirch 



and irreliilible reafonriig of the es:amtnnlio;i of tlie Brit* 
iih doftrine, was alfo made a fubjeft of full and delibe- 
rate difcuilion in the Senate of the United States. A 
committee of feven members of that body, after three 
weeks of arduous inveftigation, reported three Refolu- 
tions, the firfl of whicli was in thefe words, " Refolved,. 
that the capture and condemnation, under the orders 
of the Britifh government, and adjudications of their 
courts of admiralty, of American ve/fels and their car- 
goes, on the pretext of their being employed in a trade 
with the enemies of Great-Britain, prohibited in time 
of peace, is an unprovoked aggreffion upon the prop* 
erty of the citizens of thefe United States, a violation 
of their neutral rights, and an encrQachmait uj^oti their 
national independence.' * 

On the 13th of February, 1806, tlie queilion upon, 
the adoption of this refolulion was taken in the Senate. 
The yeas and nays were required ; but not a foHtarjr 
nay was heard in anfwer. It was adopted by the unan- 
imous voice of all the Senators prefent. They were 
twenty-eight in number, and among them Hands re- 
corded tlie name of Mr. Pickering. 

Let us remem.ber that this was a queftion mofl: pecu- 
liarly and im.medJately oi commercial, and not agriculiw 
ral interefl ; that it arofe from a call, loud, energetic: 
and unanimous, from all the merchants of the United 
States \.:pon Congrefs,. for the national interpofition ; 
that many of the mem^orials invoked all the energy of 
tlie I^egiflature, and pledged the lives and properties cf 
the memorraliils in fbppoit of any meafuies Vv'hicli. 
Congrefs m'ght deem neceffary to vindicate thofe 
rights. Negcciation was particularly reccm.mended, 
from Eofton and elfewhere — negociation was adopted 
•—negcciation has failed — and now Mr. Pickering tells 
us that Great-Britain has claimed and maintained her 
r'l^ht I He argues that her claim is juft — and is not 
fparing of cenfure upon thofe who flill ccnfidcr it a ferU 
ous qaufe of complaint. 



22 

But there was one point of view in which the Britifli 
dodrine on this queftion was then only confidered inci- 
dentally in the United States — becaufe it was not deem- 
ed material for the difcuffion of our rights. We exam- 
ined it chiefly as affedling the principles as between a 
belligerent and a neutral power. But in fad it was an 
infringement of the rights of War, as well as of the 
rights of Peace. It was an unjuiliiiable enlargement 
of the fphere of hoftile operations. The enemies of 
Great-Britain had by the univerfal Law, of Nations, a 
right to the benefits of neutral commerce within their 
dominions (fubjetft to the exceptions of a8iial blockade 
and contraband) as well as neutral nations had a right 
to trade with them. The exclufion from that commerce 
by this new principle of warfare, which Britain, in defi- 
ance of all immemorial national ufages, undertook by 
her fmgle authority to eftablifh, but too naturally led 
her enemies to refort to new and extraordinary princi- 
ples, by which in their turn they might retaliate this in- 
jury upon her. The pretence upon which Britain in 
the firfl inftance had attempted to color her injuftice, 
was a miferable faion — It was an argument againft 
fadl. Her reafoning v^'as, that a neutral vefTel by mere 
admifliOH in time of war, into ports from which it 
would have been excluded in time of peace, became 
thereby deprived of its national character, and ipfo fado 
was transformed into enemy's property. 

Such was the bafis upon which arofe the far fam.ed 
rule of the war of 1756 — Such v/as the foundation upon 
which Britain claimed and maintained this fuppofed right 
of adding that new inftrument ot defolation to the hor- 
rors of war — It was diftrefling to her enemy-^Yes \ 
Had fhe adopted the practice of dealing in poiicn-^ 
Had Mr. Fox accepted the fervices of the man who 
offered to rid him of the French Emperor by affaf-, 
fmatiou, and had the attempt fucceeded, it would 
have been lefs diilreffing to France than this rule of 
the war of 1756 ; and nor. more unjuftifiable. Mr. 
Yo^ had too fair a mind for cither, but his com- 



28 

jn-ehenfive and liberal fpirit waa difcarded, vrith thtf 
Cabinet which he had formed. 

It has been the fttuggle of reafon and humanity^ 
and above all of Chriftianity, for two thouland years, 
to mitigate the rigors of that fcourge of human kind^ 
War. It is now the ftriiggle of Britain to aggra- 
vate them. Her lule of the war of 1756, in itfelf 
and its efFe<5ls, was one of the deadliePc poifons, in 
which it was poffible for her to tinge the weapons 
of her hoflility* 

In itfelf and its effefls, I fay — For the French de- 
crees of Berlin and of Milan — the Spanilh and Dutch 
decrees of the fame or the like tenor — and her own 
orders of January and November — ihefe alternations 
of licenfed pillage, this eager competition between 
liei and her enemies for the honor of giving the laft 
ftroke to the vitals of maritime neutrality, all aie 
juftly attributable to her aflumj)tion and exerciie of 
this fmgie principle. The rule of the War of 1756 
was the root, from which all the reft are but fuckers, 
IHII at every Ihoot growing ranker in luxuriance. 

In the laft decrees of France and Spain, lier own 
ingenious fidion is adopted ; and under th(?m, every 
neutral veiTel that fubmits to Englilh fearch, has been 
carried into an Englilh port, or paid a tax to the Eng* 

flifh government, is declared denationalized^ that is, to 
ave loft her national cliara(5ler, and to have beccm.e 
Engliih property. This is cruel in execution, abfurd 
in argument. To refute it were folly, for to tlie 
underftanding of a child it refutes itfelf. But it is the 
renfoning of Britifli Jurifts. It is the fimple applica« 
tion to the circumftances and pov/ers of France, of 
the rule of the war of 1756. 

I am not the apclogiPc of France and Spain ; I h.ave 
no national partialities ; no national attachments but 
to my own country. I ihall never undertake to jufti-« 
fy 01 to palliate the infults or injuries of any foreign 
power to that country which is dearer to me tlian liie. 
If the voice of Reafon and of Juftice could be heard 



■S4 

by France -and Spain, tliey would fay — you have don» 
Wrong to make the injuftice cf your enemy: tov.'^ard's 
neutrals the meafure of your own. If ftie chaitifes with 
whips do not you chaftife with Scorpions. — Whether 
France would liften to this language, I know not. The 
moft enormous infractions of our rights hitlierto com* 
tnitted by her, have been more in menace than in 
accomplilhment. The alarm has been juftly great : 
"the anticipation threatening ; but the amount of a<5tu- 
al injury fmall. But to Britain, what can we fay ? If 
we attempt to raife our voices, her Miniflerhas decla- 
red to Mr. Pinckney that fhe will not hear. The on>. 
ly rcafon Ihe affigns for her recent orders of Council is, 
that France proceeds on the fame principles. It is not 
by the light of blazing temples, and amid the groans 
of women and children periihing in the ruins of the 
fanifluaries of domeftic habitation at Copenhagen, 
tliat we can expert our remonftrances againft this 
courfe of proceeding will be heard. 

Let us come to the third and laft of the caufes of 
complaint, which are reprefented as fo frivolous and 
fo unfounded^" the unfortunate affair of the Chefa- 
peake.'- .The orders of Admiral Eerkely, under which 
this outrage was committed4i have been difavowed by 
his government. General profelTions of a willingnefs 
to make reparation for it have been lavifhed in profu- 
fion ; and we are now inilrudled to take thefe profef- 
fions ior endeavors ; to believe them fincere,becaufe his 
Brtiannic Majefty fent us a fpecial envoy ; and to cafl 
the odium of defeatnig thefe endeavors, upon our own 
government. 

I have already told you, that I am not one of thofe 
who deem ful'picion and diftriiil:, in the higheft order o£ 
political virtues. Bafelefs fufpicion is, in my cftimation, 
H vice, as pernicious in the management of public af- 
fairs, as it is fatal to the happlnels of domeftic life. — 
When, therefore, the Britifli Minifters have declared 
their difpofition to make ample reparation for an inju- 
ry of a moft atrocious character, committed by an offi- 



•^5 

?<>r of high rank, and, as they fay, utterly without au- 
thority, i fhouid moft readily believe them, were their 
profeffions not pofitively contradided by fads of more 
powerful eloquence than words. 

Have fuch facts occurred ? I will not again allude to 
the circumftances of Mr. Rofe^s departure upon his 
million at fuch a precife point of time, that his Com- 
million and the orders of Council of 11th November, 
might have been figned with the fame penful of ink. 
The fubje<fts were not immediately conne«5led with each 
other, and his Majefty did not chufe to aUbciate diftintfl 
topics of negotiation. The attack upon the Chefa- 
'peake was difavowed ; and ample reparation was 
withheld only, becaufe with the demand for fatisfac- 
tion upon that injury, the i^merican Government had 
coupled a demand for the celfation of others ; alike 
in kind, but of minor aggravation. But had repar- 
ation really been intended, would it not have been 
offered, not in vague and general terms, but In pre- 
cife and fpecilic pix)pofals ? Were any fuch made ? 
None. But it Is laid, Mr. Munroe was reftrifled from 
negotiating upon this fubjedl. apart ; and therefore Mr. 
Rofe was to be fent to Wafliington ; charged with 
tliis fmgle object ; and without authority to treat up- 
on or even to difcufs any other. Mr. Rofe arrives — 
The American Government readily determine to treat 
upon the Chefapeake afalrt feparately from all others ; 
but before Mr. Rofe fets his foot on fhore, in purfu- 
ance of a pretenfion made before by Mr. Canning, he 
connedts with the negotiation, a fubjedl far more dli- 
tin6t from the butchery of the Chefapeake, tlian tlie 
general ImprelTment of our feamen, I mean ihePro- 
clamntlon, interdiding to Britifli fln'ps of war, the en- 
trance of our harbours. 

The great obflacle which has always Interfered In 
the adjuftment of our differences with Britain, has 
been that flie would not acqulefce In the only prin- 
ciple upon which fair negotiation betv/een indepen- 
dent nation* can be conduced, the principle of reci- 
c 



j5rocity, fhat ITic refufes the application to us of :^e 
claim which fhe afieits for herfelf. The forcible tak- 
ing of men from an American vefTel, was an eflen* 
tial part of the outrage upon the Chefapeake. It 
was the oftenfible purpofe for which that adt of w^ar 
improclaimed, was committed. The Prefident's Pro- 
clamation was a fubfequent a6t, and was avowedly 
founded upon many fimilar aggreffions, of which that 
Was only the moft aggravated. 

If then Britain could with any colour of reafon 
claim that the general queftion of imprefTment fhould 
be laid out of the cafe altogether, (he ought upon 
the principle of reciprocity to have laid equally out 
of the cafe, the proclamation, a meafure fo eafily fe- 
parable from it, and in its nature merely defenfive. 
When therefore fhe made the repeal of the Proclama- 
tion an indifpenfible preliminary to all difcuffion up- 
on the nature and extent of that reparation which fhe 
had offered, fhe refufed to treat with us upon the 
footing of an independent power. She infifted upon 
an a<5t of felf'-degradation -on our part, before fhe 
■would even tell us, what redrefs fhe would conde- 
fcend to grant for a great and acknowledged wrong. 
This was a condition which fhe could not but know 
to be inadmiffible, and is of itfelf proof nearly con« 
clufive that her Cabinet never intended to make for 
that wrong any reparation at all. 

But this is not all — It cannot be forgotten that when 
that atrocious deed was committed, amidft the gene- 
ral burft of indignation which refounded from every 
part of this Union, there were among us a fmall num- 
ber of perfons, who upon the opinion that Berkley's 
orders were authorized by his government, undertook 
to juftify them in their fulleft extent — Thefe ideas prob- 
ably firft propagated by Britifh official charaders, in this 
Country, were perfided in until the difavowal of tlie 
Britifh Government took away the neceffity for per* 
fevering in them, and gave notice where the next po- 
Ation was to betaken. This patrioticieafoning how- 



27^ 

ever liad been fo fatlsfadtory at Halifax, tllaf com- 
plimentary letters were received from Admiral Berk^ 
ley himfelf, highly approving the fpirit in which they 
were inculcated, and- remarking how eafily Peace, be- 
tween the United States and Britain might be preferved, 
\^ that meafiire of our national lights could be made the 
prevailing ilandard of the Country. 

When the news arrived in England^ although the gen- 
eral fentiment of the nation was not prepared for the 
formal avowal and juflification of this unparalleled ag- 
greffion, yet there were not wanting perfons there ready 
to claim and maintain the right of fearching national ihips- 
for deferters — It was faid at the time, but for this we 
mud of courfe reft upon the credit of inofficial authori- 
ty, to have been made a ferious queftion in the Cabinet 
Council.;- nor was its determination there afcribed to the 
eloquence of the gentleman v;ho became the official oi- 
gan of its communication — Add to this a circumftance, 
which witliout claiming tlie irrefragable credence of a 
diplomatic note, has yet its weight upon the common 
fenfe of mankind ; that in all the dally newfpapers- 
known to be in the minifterial intereft, Berkley v/as jufti* 
fied and applauded in every variety of for.ni tbat pub-- 
lication could, affiime, excepting only that of official 
Proclamation. — The only part of his orders there dif-^ 
approved was the reciprocal offer which he made of 
fubmitting his ov/n fhips to be fcarched in leLurn — . 
that was very unequivocally difclv;irned — The ruflian 
right of fuperior force, was the fbli J hafe upon wliich 
the claim was ajferted, and fo familiar wah this ar*. 
gument grown to the cafuifts of Britifn nationalju- 
jifprudence, that the right of a Britifh man of war 
to fearch an American frigate, was to them a felf. 
evident proof againft the right of the American fri, 
gate to fearch the Britiffi man of war. The fame 
tone has been conftantly kept up, until our accounts 
pf lateft date, and have been recently further invig- 
orated by a very explicit call for war with the Un- 
'.ted. State?, \ybich they contend could be of no pofii* 



2& 

ble Injury to Britain, and whrdi tliey urge upon the* 
miniflry as afFording them an excellent opportunity to 
accomplifh a d'lsmembennent of this Union. — Thefe fenti- 
ments have even been avowed in Pail lament, where 
the nobleman who moved the addrefs of the houfe of 
Lords in anfwer to the king's fpeech, declared that the 
right of fearching national Ihips, ought to be maintain-, 
ed againft the Americans, and difelaimed- only with re- 
fye£t to European fovereigns. 

In the mean time Admiral Berkley, by a court mar- 
tial of his own fubordinate officers, hung one of die men 
taken from the Chefapeake, and called his name Jenkii\ 
Ratford. — There was, according to the anfwer fo fre- 
quently given by the Lords of the Admiralty, upon ap. 
plications for the difcharge of imprefied Americans, ut 
such man on hoard the ship. The man thus executed had 
been taken from the Chefapeake by the nam^ of Wilfon. 
It is faid that on his trial he was identified by one or 
two v/itnelTes who knew him, and that before he was 
turned off he confefled his name to be Ratford,and that 
he was born in England — l;ut it has alfo been faid that 
Ratford is now livi:.g in Pennfylvania — and after the 
charader which the difavowal of Admiral Berkley's 
ovni government has given to his condufl, what confi- 
dence can be claimed or due to the proceedings of a 
court martial of his afTociates held to fan<flion his pro- 
ceedings. — Tlie three other men had not even been de- 
manded in his orders — They v\'ere taken by the fole au-. 
thority of the Britifh fearching lieutenant, after the fur- 
render of the Chefapeake. There was not the fhadow 
ot a pretence before the court martial that they were 
Britiih fubjeils, or born in any of the Britifh dominions. 
Yet by this court martial they wei-e fentenced to suffer 
death. Tliey w^ere reprieved from execution, only up., 
on condition of renouncing their rights as Americans 
by voluntary fervice in the king's ihips — They have 
never been reflored. To complete the cataftrophe with 
which this bloody tragedy was concluded, Admiral 
Berklev himfelf in fandionincr the d-oom of tliefe m.en — 



2f 

thus obtained — thus tried — and tlnis fentcnced, read' 
them a grave moral ledure on the enormity of their 
crime, in its tendency to provoke a war between the 
United States and Great-Britain. 

Ytt amidft all this parade of difavowal by his 
government — amidft all thefe profeffions of readinefs 
to make reparation — not a fmgle mark of the ilight— 
eft difapprobation appears to have been manifefted 
to that oflicer. His inftru(51ions were executed upon 
the Chefapeake in June. Rumors of his recal have 
been circulated here — But on' leaving the ftation at 
Halifax in December, he received a complimentary 
addrefs from the colonial affembly,- and alTured them 
in anfwer, that he had no official information of his- 
recal. From thence he went to the Weft-Indies ; 
and onleaving Bermuda for England, in February, was- 
addrefted aga n by that colonial government in terms 
of high panegyric upon his energy, with manifeft. 
allufion to his atchievement upon the Chefipeake. 

Under all thefe circumftanceSi without c^pplying 
any of the maxims of a fufpicious policy to the Brit- 
ilh profeftions, I may. ftill be permitted to believe 
diat their miniftry never ferioufly intended to make 
us honorable reparation, or indeed any reparation at 
all for that "unfortunate affair." 

It is impoffible for any man to form an accurate 
idea of the Britifh policy towards the United States-, 
without taking into confideration the ftate of parties 
in that government ; and the views, charadlers and^ 
opinions of the individuals at their helm of State. — 
A liberal and a hoftile policy towards America, are 
among the ftrongeft marks of diftindion between the 
political fyftems of the rival ftatefmen of that king- 
dom. The liberal party are reconciled to our Inde- 
pendence ; and though extremely tenacious of every 
right of their ov/n country, are fyftematically difpo- 
fed to pieferve peace with the United States. Their 
opponents harbor fentiments of a very different de~ 
fcription — ^Their fyftem is coercioiir—Their cbjecl, the* 
c2 



30 

recovery of their loft dominion in North-America — 
This party now ftands high in power — Although Ad- 
miral Berkely may never have received written or- 
ders from them for his enterprize upon the Chefa- 
peake, yet in giving his inftru(5tions to the fquadron 
at Norfolk, he knew fwll well under what adminif- 
1 ration he was a<fllng. Every meafure of that ad- 
miniflration towards us fmce that time has been di- 
redeJ to the fame purpofe — to break down the fpii- 
it of our National Independence. Their purpofe, as 
far as it can be colledled from their acts, is to force 
us into a war with them, or with their enemies; 
to leave us only the hitter alternative of their ven- 
geance or their protection. 

Beth thefe parties are no doubt willing that we 
iliouid join them in the war of their nation againft 
France and her allies — The late adminiftration would 
have drawn us into it by treaty, the prefent are at- 
tempting it by compulfion. The former would have 
vidmitted us as allies, the latter will have us no oth- 
erwife than as colonifts. On the late debates in Par- 
liament, the Lord Chancellor freely avowed that the 
orders of Council of 11th November were intended 
to make America <?/ last feniible of the policy cf join- 
ing England agalnft France. 

This too, fir, is the fubftantial argument of Mr. 
Pickering's letter. The fufpicions of a ihjign in our 
own adminiftriition to plunge us into a war with 
Britain, I have never ihared. Our adrainillration 
have every intered and every motive that can influ- 
ence the condu<fl of man, to deter tliem from any 
fuch purpofe. Nor have I feen any thing in their 
meafures bearing the flighted indication of it. But 
betvveen between a defign of war with England, and 
a furrender of cur national freedom for the fake of 
war with the rell of Europe, there is a material dif- 
ference. This is the policy now in fubftance recom- 
mended to us, and for which the interpofition of the 
^commercial ftates is called. For this, not only are all 



the outrages of Britain to be forgotten, but the very 
affenion of our rights- is to be branded with odium. 

Impressment -N£utral. trade — British taxation Every 

thing that can diilinguifh a ftate of national freedom 
from a ftate of national vaifalage, is to be surrendered 
at discretion.^ In. the face of every fact, we are told 
to believe every profcfTion — In the iriidft of every 
indignity, we are pointed to Britiih. protedlion as our 
only fb'eld. againlt the univerfal conqueror. Every 
phantom of jealoiify and fear is avoked — The image 
of France with a fcourge in her hand, is imprefled 
into the fervice, to laOi us into the retuge of obedi. 
ence to Britain — infmuations are even made that if 
Britain, "with her thoufand fhips of war,'* has not 
dellioyed oiu: commerce, it has been owing to her 
indulgence, and we are almoft threatened in her 
name vvl^h the " deftrudion of our fairell cities." 

Not one a6t of hofliility to Britain has Seen com- 
mitted by us — llie has not a pretence of that kind* 
to allege — But if fhe will wage war upon us, are 
we to do nothing in our own defence? If fhe iiTues 
orders of univerfal plunder upon our commerce, are 
we not to withhold it from her grafp ? Is Ameri-- 
can pillage one of thofe rights which fhe has claim- 
ed and exercifed. until we are foreclofed from any 
attempt to obftrud its colledion. ? For what pur- 
pofe are we required to make this facrilice of every 
tiling that can give valor to the name of freemen ?' 
— this abandonment of the very right of felf prefer vati on?- 
Is it to avoid a war? Alas ! Sir, it does not offer 
even this plaufible plea for pufiUanimity — For, as 
fabmifiion would make us to all fubflantial purpofes 
Britiili colonies, her enemies would unqueltionably 
treat us as fuch, and after degrading ourfclves into 
v.jlantary fervitude to efcape a war with her, we. 
fiiouid incur inevitable war with her enemies, and be 
doomed to fhare the deftinies of her confiicl v/ith a 
world in arms. 



32" 

Between tliis unqualified fubmiffion, and offenfiv6 
refiilance againil the war upon maritime neutrality 
waged by the concurring decrees of all the belliger- 
ent powers, the Embargo was adopted, and has 
been hitherto continued. So far was it from being 
didated by France, that it was calculated to with- 
draw, and has withdrawn from within her reach all- 
the means of compulfion which her fuhfequent de- 
crees would have put in her poifeffion. It has add- 
ed to the motives both of France and England, for 
preferving peace with us, and has diminifhed their 
inducements to war. It has leiTened their capacities of 
inflicling injury upon us, and given us fome prepara- 
tion for refiflance to them — It has taken from their vi» 
olence the lure of intereft- — It has- dalhed the philter 
of pillage from the lips of rapine. That it U diflref- 
fing to ourfelves — that it calls for the fortitude of a 
people, determined to maintain their rights, is not to 
be denied. But the only alternative was between 
that and war. Whether it will yet fave us from that 
calamity, cannot be determined ; but if not, it will 
prepare us for the further ftruggle to which we may 
be called. Its double tendency of promoting peace 
and preparing for war, in its operation upon both 
the belligerent rivals, is the great advantage, which 
more than outweighs air its evils. 

If any ftatefman can point out another alternative, 
t am ready to hear him, and for any pradlicable expe- 
dient to lend him every poffible alliftance. But let 
not that expedient be, fubmiffion to trade, under 
Britlfh licences and Britifii taxation. We are told 
that even under thefe reftridions we may yet trade- 
to the Britlih dominions, to Africa and China, and: 
with the colonies of France, Spain and Holland. I 
afk not how much of this trade would be left,. when 
our Intercourfe with the whole continent of Europe 
being cut off would leave us no means to pur- 
chafe, and no market for iale ? I alk not, what 
trade we could enjoy with the colonies of nations 



33= 

with which we fliould. be at war ? I ark 'aot 
how long Britain would leave open to us avenues oiT 
trade, which even in thefe very Orders of Council^ 
fhe boafts of leaving open as a fpecial indulgence I' 
If we yield the principle, we abandon all pretence to- 
national fovereignty — To yearn for the fragments of 
trade which might be left, would be to pine for the 
crumbs of commercial fervitudc — The boon which- 
we fhould humiliate ourfelves to accept from Britilli. 
bounty, would foon be withdrawn. Submiifion never 
yet let boundaries to encroachment. From pleading 
for half the empire, we ihould fmk into flipplicants 
or life — We fnould fupplicate in vain. If we muH 
f.ill, let us fiill, FREEMEN — If Wii muH perifli, let it. 
be in defence of our rights. 

To conclude, fir, I am not fenfible of any necefli-. 
ty for the extraordinary interference of the commer- 
cial ftates, to control the general councils of the na- 
tion. If" any interference could' at this critical ex- 
tremity of our affairs, have a kindly effect upon our 
common welf-ire, it would be interference to promote u- 
nion, and not adivifion — to urge mutual confidence, and 
not univerfal diflruft; — to ftrengthen the arm, and not to 
relax the fmews of the nation. Our fuifering and 
our dangers, though differing perhaps in degree, aie- 
uiiiverfal in the extent. As their caufes are juftly 
chargeable, fo their removal is dependent not upon 
ourfelves, but upon- others. But v/hile the fpirit of 
{nrlepfrnicncj fliaVl continue to beat in unifon with the 
pulfes of the nation, no danger will be tiuly formida°. 
ble. Our duties are, to prepare with concerted ener-. 
gy for thofe v/hich threaten us, to meet them with*-' 
cut difmay, and to rely for their ilfue upon Heaven. 

I am, with great refpe6t and attachment, 

Dear Sir, your friend and humble fervant, 

JOHN QUINCY ADAMS. 

Hon- ILiRRisou Gray Oijs, 



^^. 



\c.. 



//.-• 



k 




011 838 492 1 



